| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| If Not Plane Or Missle.......What? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 3 2009, 03:02 PM (1,294 Views) | |
| bryan26 | Mar 3 2009, 03:02 PM Post #1 |
|
troll
|
I read Craig's memo saying no plane or missle hit the pentagon. There is damage to the building. The pattern of damage suggests something hit at an angle consistant with the official flight path. The damage is in a cone-like shape from entry to exit. This is consistant with the laws of physics, as the object would loose force and mass as it traveled through the building. What is the truthers official theory on how the building sustained the damage? Before a theory can be put forth it frst has to be shown that it is possible. Is it possible for stationary exposives to produce the damage at the pentagon? If some object hit the building and it wasn't a missle or a plane? What else could it have been? |
 |
 
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Mar 3 2009, 04:27 PM Post #2 |
|
There was a plane and it did not hit. It was more than likely explosives, which can accomplish the "cone shape" damage pattern you are referring to. Unless you would like to explain to us how the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo, struck the five light poles, showed up low and level across the law in the surveillance video, hit the fence/generator trailer with it's right wing/engine, and skimmed under the second floor and into the first floor causing the directional damage pattern oultined by the ASCE. Other than that, you may want to read/watch up on our work: ThePentaCon.com |
|
|
|
| bryan26 | Mar 4 2009, 09:04 AM Post #3 |
|
troll
|
I have already watched Pentacon. You say the damage could be accomplished with explosives, but I don't see that as possible. It is very easy to tell if damage was caused by stationary explosives or an impact from an object moving in a certain direction. I don't believe the noc theory. IMO it woud be impossible for the plane to flyover the pentagon and fool any and all into thinking it hit. The plane would have to fly through, over, or before the explosion. The explosion is not going to hide the plane from all POVs. The plane would have to be at an altitude high enough to fly over the building. The explosion occurred very low in the building. The plane would be at one point and the explosion at another. The human brain will not be fooled. If the flyover is impossible, noc did not happen. When you say that, "the plane was noc, thus a, b, c, d, e are true, you are going from one fallacy to another. |
|
|
|
| SPreston | Mar 4 2009, 09:56 AM Post #4 |
Patriotic American
|
There you figured it out on your own. Good for you. The human brain is often fooled. Magicians rely on that fact. So do con-artists and corrupt politicians and lying preachers and 9-11 perps and their devoted defenders. The decoy aircraft flying Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo was at one place and the staged downed light poles at another. The decoy aircraft flying directly towards Sean Boger in the helipad control tower and banking right above the light poles and overhead highway sign was at one place and the explosion at the Pentagon 1st floor at another. The aircraft could not be at two places at the same time. The aircraft could not be simultaneously Over the Naval Annex and flying south of the Naval Annex and Columbia Pike at the same time. The aircraft could not be simultaneously flying above the light poles and overhead highway sign to the north and knocking down light poles to the south at the same time. The aircraft could not be simultaneously banking to the right in front of the helipad control tower and flying low and level inches above the Pentagon lawn before slamming into the 1st floor at the same time. It is really simple to understand when a person finally opens their eyes isn't it? |
|
|
|
| bryan26 | Mar 4 2009, 10:18 AM Post #5 |
|
troll
|
The truth has said that there was a plane flying over the pentagon as the explosion happened and that all people in the vacinity were fooled into thinking it hit. Is this realistic or possible? If it is not then noc did not happen, and the plane that Lagasse describes impacting the building, did just that. Some people thought a helicopter hit the pentagon. Are they wrong? Some said the plane had no windows? Some said small plane? What about the people who thought a missle hit the pentagon? When witnesses have different perceptions of the same event you need to look at other evidence to sort out what really happened. The truth uses the noc witnesses to invalidate all other witnesses. Someone could easily use other witnesses to invalidate the noc witnesses. The physical evidence will sort out what acutally hit the building. |
|
|
|
| SPreston | Mar 4 2009, 12:19 PM Post #6 |
|
Patriotic American
|
Did 20+ eyewitnesses many first interviewed back in 2001 see an aircraft flying Over the Naval Annex or a helicopter? Did many of those same eyewitnesses reinterviewed see an aircraft banking to the right or a helicopter on the north flight path? Did 13 verified eyewitnesses see an aircraft flying above their heads on the north flight path or a helicopter? Did anybody report seeing an aircraft or helicopter flyng low and level inches above the Pentagon lawn at 535 mph and knocking down light poles? No? The actual verified eyewitnesses saw an aircraft flying above the light poles and overhead highway sign on the north flight path and banking to the right and not an aircraft nor helicopter flying inches above the lawn on the official southern flight path at 535 mph. |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Mar 4 2009, 12:27 PM Post #7 |
|
Oh yeah you are Pguillory's sock. Never mind. You are a lost soul. |
|
|
|
| JackD | Mar 4 2009, 01:51 PM Post #8 |
|
-- think about this: The Lloyd cab-impact story was a lie. you take the AA77 story as 'true' so why embellish the 'truth' with a bald-faced deception? answer- you don't. the whole Pentagon setup was a deception. |
|
|
|
| bryan26 | Mar 5 2009, 10:00 AM Post #9 |
|
troll
|
You believe the Lloyd story is a lie, but I do not. As I said earlier and what none of you will touch is that the flyover theory is physically impossible. Since it is impossible the plane that the witnesses saw terminated at the pentagon, hence the damage, the debris, and the dead. You cannot show how all and every piece of physical evidence was planted or was able to be planted. The trailor was damaged by simple explosives? All damage was done in one big explosion, that somehow mimicked an impact form a massive external fast moving object? If there were no videos of the towers being hit, we could easily find 10-20 people who thought it was a military jet. How many people do you think would say it was a boeing 767-200? Now playing the CIT game I could use those 10 to 20 people and go on a 7yr mission to prove the 'truth'. These people can't be wrong, they know what they saw. It had to be a military jet, right? What if I decided that I wanted to prove a small plane had hit and foil the governments deception. I could do that also, because there would also be a number of people who believed that's what they saw. It's just a game. Only taking certain testimony to suit your needs. It is very easy to do, since people can witness the same event and come away with many different perceptions. |
|
|
|
| bryan26 | Mar 5 2009, 10:12 AM Post #10 |
|
troll
|
I am open to evidence and facts. You have shown that you will not hear what doesn't fit your theories. You have categorically denounedany witness or evidence that contradicts your claims. You are the one who is a lost cause. I have always had an open mind and began this looking for something real to believe that the gov could have done this. Everything real shows that they did not. I didn't want to believe my gov was so weak and imcompetent that this was able to happen on our soil. I thought they HAD to be in on it. You know what? They really were that weak and incompetent. |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Mar 5 2009, 11:30 AM Post #11 |
|
Oh lord, Pgullible. Lloyd has already admitted involvment. Where have you been? See my sig. I am not going to go around in circles with you again. You are hopeless and only wish to force your fear based belief into existence. When you get some balls, go tell Lagasse and co that they didn't see the plane on the NoC path. |
|
|
|
| bryan26 | Mar 5 2009, 03:23 PM Post #12 |
|
troll
|
Where is the signed/video confession that he was working in collusion with elements of the US gov. to attack itself on 9/11? Has he told how his cab was really damaged? Has he surrendered to the local law inforcement? Has he been place in protective custody? Has he already been indicted? Is an arraignment pending? Has he mentioned the names of any accomplices? Has George Bush and Dick Cheney suddenly disappeared without a trace? How could I have missed this worldwide breaking news? |
|
|
|
| JFK | Mar 5 2009, 03:26 PM Post #13 |
|
Strike two for trolling. |
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Mar 5 2009, 03:26 PM Post #14 |
|
When are you telling the witnesses they imagined the plane on the north side coward?
Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Mar 5 2009, 03:26 PM.
|
|
|
|
| bryan26 | Mar 5 2009, 04:03 PM Post #15 |
|
troll
|
How is it trolling if he says Lloyd has already admitted it? Isn't it reasonable to ask when and to who? What was said? Have the authorities been alerted? That is what the last 7+yrs of work was suppose to be about. Wouldn't Lloyd's confession be earth shattering? |
|
|
|
| bryan26 | Mar 5 2009, 04:06 PM Post #16 |
|
troll
|
I don't have to tell them they imagined anything. I simply have to look at everything without prejudice and come to a reasonable conclusion. It is not unheard of for witness tesimony to be wrong or mistaken. |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Mar 5 2009, 04:31 PM Post #17 |
|
So tell them they are wrong or mistaken. Because Lagasse stands by this claim. So does Sgt Brooks. So does Robert Turcios. If Lagasse stands by his claim, don't you think you should err on the side of caution and investigate this deeper or take it a little more seriously? Or are you just a traitor who is content with coming to your "reasonable conclusion" anonymously from behind your behind your computer monitor while you cast judgment from afar?
What if he's right, "bryan"? What then? Is it worth the loss of your country? So Lagasse stands by where he saw the plane, is he still "wrong or mistaken"? |
|
|
|
| espresso | Mar 5 2009, 04:37 PM Post #18 |
|
Wait...what? "One thing about it you gotta understand something when people do things and get away with it, you - eventually its gonna come to me; and when it comes to me its going to be so big I can't do nothing about it." ~Pentagon Taxi Cab Driver Lloyde England's admission of involvement in the 9/11 Pentagon attack That's not an admission of anything...it doesn't even make sense. |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Mar 5 2009, 05:13 PM Post #19 |
|
Oh lord another JREFer with reading comprehension problems.
Clearly he is in the midst of talking to Craig about the flight path and the plane not hitting the building.
So someone got away with something; the flyover/staging in question. And he says that eventually it would come back to him. Why would it come to him? What did they get away with? What did they do? Who are the people getting away with "it"? Al Quaeda? What else could he be referring to?
Again, it comes to him. It being the crime of the flyover and staging-which OBVIOUSLY is so big. So big, that he can't do anything about it. What the fuck else could any of that mean? It is a subtle admission of involvement, when he thought he wasn't being recorded. |
|
|
|
| espresso | Mar 5 2009, 05:24 PM Post #20 |
|
You are really twisting some ambiguous and unclear statements into exactly what you want them to mean. He didn't admit being involved in anything. He just sounds like a confused old man. If he had said "I was involved in the cover up" then it would be a different story. |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Mar 5 2009, 05:44 PM Post #21 |
|
I am twisting? So someone who was involved in a crime or a "cover-up" is ALWAYS going to admit it outright? You don't think he would subtley admit involvement? Whatever dude. He is fucked. You are fucked. |
|
|
|
| espresso | Mar 5 2009, 05:59 PM Post #22 |
|
I never said that someone involved in a crime is always going to admit to being involved. (Please do not use strawman arguments) What would be the point of admitting guilt in some subtle and obscure way? If he wants to admit guilt, he can just say "i did it". |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Mar 5 2009, 06:31 PM Post #23 |
|
Really? Is that how it works all the time? 100% of the time? Is that in duh liarz rulez book? What if he didn't want to "admit guilt", but wanted to merely offer an admission that he feels absolves him or makes him feel like a good guy still because he is kind of telling the truth while holding back the details? Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Mar 5 2009, 06:33 PM.
|
|
|
|
| JackD | Mar 5 2009, 07:00 PM Post #24 |
|
I have looked at the Lloyd situation extensively. I would not accuse Lloyd of participating in mass-murder at Pentagon. He's not the guilty party. but what i do suspect lloyd of is KNOWINGLY TELLING A FALSE STORY. .. and this false story helps cover up what actually occurred. Lloyd can't be charged with anything, but, if murder charges were filed, i'd call Lloyd to testify under oath. That has not yet been done. Regarding the DAMAGE and pattern, funny you should mention that. Previously, extensive computer modeling of plane crashes into Pentagon were done as part of a drill scenario. to protect the Pentagon workers, engineers would need to know how far, how bad, a plane crash would go. Once you've modelled that sufficiently, why not simply use the model to place pre-planted incendiaries in a pattern which mimics what a 757 would do? that way, if an 'event' happens, voila' the damage pattern looks kinda like ... a 757 impact would model. YOu could even hire Purdue to model it (before) imean after the fact! |
|
|
|
| bryan26 | Mar 6 2009, 09:12 AM Post #25 |
|
troll
|
How could he knowingly tell a false story to help cover up mass murder and not be complicit in the crime? I don't see how it can go both ways. Either he is one of the many alleged conspirators or he is an old man, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't see anything wrong with anything he has said. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
4:37 PM Nov 23
